Case at hand: Woodbury, Vt., approximately 700 adults, is in a tizzy because the principal of the grade school there doesn’t “want to isolate children every day in their own classroom, or make them feel different” by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America daily. Parents had requested the resumption of the recitation of the Pledge, so the principal took the children of those parents out of their classrooms each morning to the gym where they could recite the pledge without “offending” the children who didn’t want to say the pledge. So she offends the “appreciation” group so as not to offend the “non-appreciation” group. And the principal is being backed up by the school board. My problem comes in the form of a question: Do not these folks who are offended by the pledge realize that they are protesting the very principle which allows them to protest? Their minds are so small that they cannot recognize anything beyond the tips of their noses. They cannot appreciate their humongously good fortune in simply being born where they were rather than Russia (or many other places that I would rather they be).
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
So, you say, you are just as biased as they are, on the opposite side. Yes, you’re darn-tootin’ I am. I know where I am, and how and why I got here, and I thank the Lord every day for my extremely good fortune. I pulled a fast one on my parents in order to get into the defense of my country of birth before I turned 18, and I do not regret it. So I say, if you don’t like this country, I’ll help you to get out of it as fast as possible. Don’t get your nose out of joint and ruin it for those of us who can appreciate our good fortune.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all
FINANCES: What follows is something that I wrote to one of my grandchildren, who suggested that perhaps some others in the good-ole USA might take heart with it.
I am not a financial wizard. I am financially comfortable, although I did not get here all by myself, not by a longshot. I had some good help in planning. So, maybe my opinion is not worth very much, but I have seen what I have seen.
I have seen overall personal wealth increase over the years. I have seen a shrinking of the number of traditional “have-nots” and an improvement (only slight, but better than a decline) in status of those folks. A greater percentage of folks own (or are paying for) their own cars, refrigerators and stoves, than when I was a kid. (I was ecstatic when my father could give me a penny to buy a sucker that would cost ten times that today.) When I was making $300 a month flying an airplane for Uncle Sam, I did not buy a car because it would cost me a month’s salary: And now people buy a car, and sometimes two cars, which would cost more than a year’s salary.
I think greed has enveloped us (note that I use the personal plural), most notable in CEOs taking home a billion dollars for sitting at the head of successful companies and projecting themselves as The Wizard of Oz. And now the chicks are coming home to roost. I do not think that we will crash as a nation although some folks (corporations) will have to rethink and reorganize themselves (witness GM) as they become more realistic.
We have taught the rest of the world how to make money, and now must compete with our progeny, so to speak. Some corporations and people are going to be hurt, some of them severely. But I do not this United States of America will collapse. We will have to change some attitudes and some processes, but we will do it. So, America on the decline? No, it is returning to reason.
There is one fly in the ointment: If our government assumes Marxist principles we are in an entirely different ballgame.
Now, as you leave, you may sign up for the next semester’s lecture by paying the fee in dollars, please: no checks or Euros.
THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: The Federal Communication Commission, in 1949, mandated the federally licensed radio and TV stations “provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints” on “vitality important controversial issues”.
Radio and TV got around that by broadcasting only non-controversial stuff, When, in 2987, President Reagan managed to rid broadcast of the opprobrium, and controversy got underway. And guess where most listeners went: Conservative talk shows. Liberal talk shows couldn’t raise a large corps of listeners. Listeners’ Choice, eh? Well, not so fast. Talk show surveys show that conservative talk shows have way more listeners than liberal ones. So now, Madame Speaker Pelosi of the United States House of Representatives, and Senator Reid, Majority Leader of the United Sates Senate, want to reinvoke the Fairness Doctrine, which say that radio must broadcast as much Liberal Time as Conservative Time in order to be FAIR, never mind that listeners, not management, determine who listens. Broadcast stations will broadcast what sells, and that is the American dream. You offer what people want. And never mind that, in spite of no “Fairness Doctrine,” liberals did not unequivocally inundate the conservatives. So, Pelosi and Reid want to stack the deck, eliminate the competition, and WIN, by hook or by crook.
Answer: If you agree with me, let your senators and Congressman know that you want to block the un“Fairness Doctrine.”